Vampires: Why Here, Why Now?
It's not a myth. They are among us -- in book stores, on movie screens, TV sets and billboards, in graphic novels and video games all across the land. The vampire genre has been with us since Dr. John Polidori's 1819 The Vampyre, followed by Bram Stoker's 1897 neck-biter, through the silent screen's Nosferatu (1922), the Bela Lugosi movies from the 1930s and '40s, Hammer Horror films ('50s and '60s,) TV's Dark Shadows (1966-1971), Anne Rice's best seller Interview with a Vampire (1976), and Buffy the Vampire Slayer series (1997-2001).
While each had singular popularity, vampires' fictional presence has never been greater than it is today. Stephanie Meyer is the current queen of vamp-lit with a reported 70 million copies of the Twilight series sold, followed by the super-hit Twilight movie. Tanya Huff, Charlie Huston, Rosemary Laurey and Drew Silver are among many other successful writers working the genre. Tracey Bateman adds a redemptive angle with a vamp series from WaterBrook, the evangelical Christian division of Random House. HBO's hit, True Blood, based on Charlaine Harris' The Southern Vampire Mysteries, is back for another season and this week, The CW Network airs The Vampire Diaries, based on the young adult books of L. J. Smith. And a 'vampire' Google click yields almost 18 million sites.
If fiction often reflects a nation's culture, why, oh-why-oh, do we have so many vampires, in so many places, sucking up so many entertainment dollars with such blazing success today? Feature writers tend to tie the current blood draining craze to two wars, terrorism and financial hard times.
"Times are always part of the pop culture recipe," says Robert Thompson, professor of television and pop culture at the University of Syracuse's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, but it's more about the modern media's creative skill to broaden the genre. "There's much more narrative opportunities if vampires can be evil monsters as well as romantic heroes," he continues. Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire was the pivot point. Thompson calls it, "ground zero of the modern iteration of the vampire and expands the mythology into its modern iteration." Before Rice, the vampire story was a costume drama with limited literary scope. Rice, followed-up by Stephanie Meyer, "...modernized and domesticated the vampire, ripping away the traditional narrative from the black-caped, thickly Euro-accented, terror guy you run from, to the handsome, seductive bad-boy next door you want to sleep with," says Thompson. "Once you can let vampires next to us, and with us in our bedrooms, that opens up an extraordinary amount of narrative territory that we didn't have before," says the 50-something pop culture professor.
It didn't take 9/11, or a bad economy for us to be attracted to bad boys, he points out. We've always been drawn to them -- from Cagney and Coppola's gangsters, Brando on the motorcycle, Beatty and Dunaway's Bonnie & Clyde, Nicolas Cage's Con Air and Colin Farrell in most anything. They're the bad-boy archetype, so incredibly attractive, we can't resist them even though we know they're not good for us and will drain us -- literally. They're "mad, bad and dangerous to know," (Lady Caroline Lamb, refering to Lord Byron following their 1812 affair) True Blood's Bill Compton would like to drink his human love interest, Sookie, dry but he loves her so much he won't. "Doesn't everyone at some point want to be in a relationship that's that passionate?" asks Thompson.
While 1976's Interview with a Vampire was the literary shift from horror to hero, there was a major, and often overlooked, turn before then that made it easier for the public to accept Anne Rice's make-over. We're talking about Sesame Street and General Mills.
Starting in the early 70s, a new generation of kids learned to count from the helpful, vamp-fanged Count on Sesame Street. He may have looked and sounded like Bela Lugosi, but he had the heart and soul of a friendly teacher. Ca-ching! Just about the same time, General Mills put out its popular and very sweet kid's cereal, Count Chocula, featuring a guy with chocolate and marshmallows running through his tasty veins. Ca-ching, ca-ching. Let the morphing begin. Because vampires are so domesticated and appealing now, perhaps it's time to put True Blood's hunky vamp, Bill Compton, on the Wheaties Breakfast of Champions box. Ca-ching-ching-ching!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Actually, two years before the movie "Interview with a Vampire" was "Bram Stoker's Dracula" which was still having an effect 6 months later on a group of young adults I was stuck riding an elevator with. The horrible fake British accents and speech patterns along with all of them being costumed as Victorian era vampires made it hard for me to keep a straight face (imagine a lot of people saying "Wot - wot" and "Guvner" with fake fangs in their mouths and cockney/Brooklyn mix accents.)
There are also the books by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro about Count Saint -Germain from 1978 to present. The Vampire Tapestry, by Suzy Mckee Charnas (1980), and then all the short stories and novels which have added their part to the vampire legends.
because anne rice made them gay and this is the era of gay liberation
No mention of "Blackula" of course...always tryin' to keep a black vampire down.
If you see a vampire, kill it.
Used to be a vampire/horror fan, back when people had the sense to realize that "Hey, to be a vampire you have to DIE first." And even if a loved one in a movie or book was lost to the other world...you loved them enough to help them transition. That's the point.
Also, the romanticism is kind of loss when there are way too many vampires. That's the first sign a potential good horror flick will turn into adventure/gore/schlock - too many vampires.
Now, we're being asked to accept evil as a daily part of our lives. With shows like True Blood featuring a peculiar brand of idiot society that thinks "Wow, the living can exist with the dead..."
Uh....Sookie...your boyfriend is dead. Do him a favor and help him transition.
As a nation, we appear to love vampires! Perhaps they are just a subconscious metaphor for Corporate America and Wall Street, which are intent on sucking every last drop of wealth from the people who so vociferously support their profiteering ways.
Or...maybe it's because they are hot. I mean they are dark and brooding, mysterious and they kill you by practically making out with you. Nothing against Seth Green, but I can't see finding a werewolf that sexy.
Ms V possibly does not find "bears" sexy either. Bloodsucking parasites are sexy. They seem to be looking for bleeding heart liberals who think fiction is harmless.
Love True Blood and Ann Rice's vampire series! I just read The Strain by Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth) and Chuck Hogan. Truly an original take on the vampire genre and oh so scary! Loved it!
I never read the Twilight series, but Stephanie Meyers book, The Host, is amazing! It's Sci-Fi, scary, and a bit of romance - I'm hoping for a sequel! I've always leaned towards horror and thrillers - I can't say exactly why, except that it is one of the greatest escapes from reality when life can be so cruel.
I'm a huge fan of True Blood and Ann Rice's vampire series, but I've always enjoyed a really good vampire scare! Whether it be by book, tv, or movie, I love a good scare. I just read The Strain by Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth) and Chuck Hogan. What a new and scary take on the vampire genre - not a single smidge of romance - loved it! This book is the first in a trilogy and I highly recommend it to anyone that loves a truly scary story. I've never read the Twilight series, but Stephanie Meyers book, The Host, was an excellent read - totally original, scary, and a touch of romance as well. It boasts that it's science fiction for those that aren't into science fiction and I completely agree. As far as why I lean towards thriller and horror stories, I can't exactly say. Maybe because of the tragedies that I've endured, that the escape that's provided distracts me from my reality. Or maybe I just love a good SCARE!!!
On a issue that is only very, very peripherally related, am I the only one excited about the news from AMC?
From AMC:
In one of the largest development deals AMC has ever closed, the network announced today it has secured the rights to "The Walking Dead" as a new series in development. Based on the comic book series, written by Robert Kirkman...Kirkman signed on to serve as an executive producer on the project and three-time Academy award nominee Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile) has signed on to write, direct and executive produce. Gale Anne Hurd (The Terminator, Aliens, Armageddon, The Incredible Hulk), chairman of Valhalla Motion Pictures, has signed on to executive produce. David Alpert from Circle of Confusion has also signed on as executive producer. "The Walking Dead" is one of the most celebrated contemporary genre comics.
"The Walking Dead" tells the story of the months and years that follow after a zombie apocalypse. The story follows a group of survivors, led by police officer Rick Grimes, who travel in search of a safe and secure home. The comic goes on to explore the challenges of life in a world overrun by zombies who take a toll on the survivors, and sometimes the interpersonal conflicts present a greater danger to their continuing survival than the zombies that roam the country. Over time, the characters are changed by the constant exposure to death and some grow willing to do anything to survive.
Agreed and seconded, cdub. And Romero's "Survival of the Dead" (alternately known as "Island of the Dead") has a very interesting take for this 'time capsule of culture..plus zombies', which Romero is a master of. Here's the synopsis, courtesy of "Dread Central": ***Synopsis:
On a small island off North America's coast, the dead rise to menace the living. Yet...the islanders can't bring themselves to exterminate their loved ones, despite the growing danger from those the once held dear. A rebel among them hunts down all the zombies he can find, only to be banished from the island for assassinating his neighbors and friends. On the mainland, bent on revenge, he encounters a small band of survivors in search of an oasis on which to build a new life. Barely surviving an attack from a mass of ravenous flesh-eaters, they commandeer a zombie-infested ferry and sail to the island. There, to their horror, they discover that the locals have chained the dead inside their homes, pretending to live 'normal' lives...with bloody consequences. What ensues is a desperate struggle for survival and the answer to a question never posed in Romero's Dead films: Can the living ever live in peace with the dead?*** Sounds like it will be physiological study, as well as the always-enjoyable zombie-thwacking mayhem..! ;) ...
Well, the current spurt on the screen is following the publishing fad genre of "urban fantasy" literature. Is there anything special about these times that have lead to this? Doubt it. The popularity of vampire stories seem to cycle every twenty years or so. It's as if the appeal of them is being constantly rediscovered.
In a broader sense, these stories are less overt and offensive ways of tapping the young's fascination with eroticism. Vampirism is, of course, about sex at the archetypal level. From the homoeroticism of Bram Stoker's Dracula, to the longing, frustration of "Twilight," its about erotic hunger taken to the extremes of madness and deviance. Renfield eating spiders. Sookie Stackhouse tasting her own blood on the lips of Bill Compton. For the vampire there is the desperate need to sate their need and desire. For the victim, there is the le petit morte of the moment of being bitten. Of being taken and devoured. Surrender. It is of course, a form of masochism. But the willing victim embraces it to the point of embracing death itself, because that is the only way of ever being completely satisfied. Because, after all, for most people, life is mostly mundane, punctuated by moments of quiet desperation with only hints of something greater. Being the victim is about that something greater. And if it takes deviance to reach that point, then so be it.
I would suggest that the fetishization of blood and fear generated over regular penetrative sex due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic has struck just the perfect chord whose frequency has found resonance in our collective consciousness. Of course the overt sexyness of the night, candles, and dreamy exctacy contribute. But the pendulum swings both ways following unpredictable paths as with any chaotic system. I wonder how much longer before the sexiness of the Eisenhower era returns...back when sex was dirty, and there were all those corsets and snaps and zippers beneath the crinkly crisp clothing that spoke of one's material success, and kept hidden away presumably to insure that it stayed that way.
It's really not new. Vampires have existed in one form or another since times well-before Christ. Comparatively, what we know as the modern vampire is relatively young, first appearing in the 18th century. There's a really interesting roundtable discussion of the topic here:
http://www.pinkraygun.com/2009/02/25/twelve-tribes-vampire-panel-part-1/
http://www.pinkraygun.com/2009/02/26/twelve-tribes-vampire-panel-part-2/
I've always enjoyed vampire-themed entertainment since I was a kid. But the vampire-as-chick-lit-material has been a huge turn off. I liked the first couple of Lestat books until Rice took them in a few bizarre directions and just became unreadable. I was a big fan of Buffy and Angel simply because those shows were well-written and interesting. But this Twilight thing... The books may have been popular, but they never received any really decent reviews, so I had no desire to read them. Especially after I finally saw the movie (rental, thank goodness). BORING.
For a really decent vampire scare, go watch the original "Salem's Lot". Gave me nightmares as a kid, and it was a TV movie! (David Soul and Lance Kerwin... Remember them?)
The reason this sort of thing is so popular is that most people have bad taste. If they wanted to read intelligent horror or suspense, they'd buy a book by someone like Peter Straub--but they don't. They buy Stephanie Meyer by the truckload.
Let's not be an elitist or the taste police. After all, others would argue that Straub is not the epitome of good taste. We should be happy that people are picking up a book, even if it is by Stephanie Meyer, and reading.
I can appreciate where you're coming from, Fugly, but I don't feel that I'm being an elitist. It's no secret that the masses don't have the most refined tastes, and schlock is okay--there will always be an audience for it. But that doesn't mean it's not schlock! And Peter Straub, love him or hate him, is an intelligent, accomplished writer who never settles for doing what he did in his previous book.
How do you know they don't read Straub? Just wondering...
Call it an informed hunch. Go to amazon.com and examine the reviews for Straub's last two novels, "lost boy lost girl" and "In the Night Room": 'Me not understand this. Book not scary. Me read another Stephen King book now.' And even King has said that Stephanie Meyer 'can't write worth a darn' (USA Weekend Magazine, Feb. 2, 2009). I don't believe there's a great deal of overlap between Straub's readers and Meyer's readers.
Then there's also White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade (now Vampire: the Requiem), which took the collective vampire mythos and expanded it into various arenas (the mystic, the feral, the inhuman corporate executive).
I'm afraid I have a simpler and more cynical reason for the vampire trend. The people who manage to get popular books sold and movies made aren't very creative. My daughter explained the story line of Twilight to me and I kept on saying "oh, so its just like Buffy" or really more of a lame rip off of Buffy which thanks to Joss Whedon actually was a fairly creative series that showed female empowerment. Twilight turns the grrrl power slayer into a whiny debutante who needs to be protected by her demon-man. And in general the vampire myth provides a predefined set of stereotypes and plot devices that everyone is familiar with, especially when you take the Twilight approach and don't just pick up the general myth but many of the main ideas that proved so succesfull for a popular TV series. Much easier than actually inventing a fantasy world that makes sense the way J.K. Rowling did.
The problem with that is that you ignore that vampires are done VERY differently by different authors, and they've been famous since LONG before the books mentioned in the article came around. Yes, it is only recently that they've become more sexy rather than scary, but still... They go waaaaaayyyy back to ancient times.
And as for the Whedon-love, I agree that Whedon is awesome, but still, Sherrilyn Kenyon, author of the incredible Dark-Hunter series, has been doing them for FAR longer than he has. Even if she only got her vampires published in the last decade or so, the characters Sherri uses were created while she was in college, LONG before Whedon's take on Buffyverse.
I'm sure you're right. I've actually never read a vampire book all the way through, just not my thing. I tried getting through an Ann Rice book but all the erotic blood drinking turned me off. I was commenting half in jest and the other half just because I think Twilight really, really sucks even though all I know about it is the inadvertently hilarious trailer and my daughter's description of the first book and a half (she got sick of it and gave up half way into the second). I don't completely love Whedon either. I thought Firefly was rubbish, he just doesn't get Science Fiction. But the one thing I do like is female empowerment and he was one of the first people to really make that work without being overly preachy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
